We are sizing our servers for 4000 uses, with 1GB mailboxes, 30 storage 
groups with 1 mailbox store each and CCR.  How much space should I allocate 
for the system files per storage group?  And what kind of transaction 
performance do these LUNS need?

Thanks!!!

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:47:33 -0800, scottdotnot
 wrote:

>We are sizing our servers for 4000 uses, with 1GB mailboxes, 30 storage 
>groups with 1 mailbox store each and CCR.  How much space should I allocate 
>for the system files per storage group?  And what kind of transaction 
>performance do these LUNS need?
>
>Thanks!!!

Define "system files" volume?
And the transaction logs for that much traffic are going to need a
shed load of spindles to sit on. You're proposing putting upwards of
5TB (inc DIRT) of databases on each server so you will have some
serious storage if your use of the plural "servers" wasn't a typo.

thanks,

yea I know, this is not a mom and pop shop running small buss. server.

We have 2 EMC CX40 arrays with 168 disk in each one.  I understand how to 
size edb and log LUNS I just can find anything on sizing the System luns.  
The one that gets set when you set up a new storage group.





"Mark Arnold [MVP]" wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:47:33 -0800, scottdotnot
>  wrote:
> 
> >We are sizing our servers for 4000 uses, with 1GB mailboxes, 30 storage 
> >groups with 1 mailbox store each and CCR.  How much space should I allocate 
> >for the system files per storage group?  And what kind of transaction 
> >performance do these LUNS need?
> >
> >Thanks!!!
> 
> Define "system files" volume?
> And the transaction logs for that much traffic are going to need a
> shed load of spindles to sit on. You're proposing putting upwards of
> 5TB (inc DIRT) of databases on each server so you will have some
> serious storage if your use of the plural "servers" wasn't a typo.
>

You're not making it easy...
When I set up a new SG, I don't put it on the "System" luns.  System to me 
is the, well, system a.k.a. Operating System.

In your case, you're mixing and matching terms to the point that you could 
mean all kinds of things. For example, you may be referring to the binaries 
of the application.  You may be referring to the stm placement locations. 
You may be referring to the location for something else altogether, but 
whatever you're referring to, you'll need to give an example so that your 
terms and those of everyone else match.

Al



"scottdotnot"  wrote in message 
news:6D42909B-8F28-4AB7-9B6E-E89168E1BFB8@microsoft.com...
> thanks,
>
> yea I know, this is not a mom and pop shop running small buss. server.
>
> We have 2 EMC CX40 arrays with 168 disk in each one.  I understand how to
> size edb and log LUNS I just can find anything on sizing the System luns.
> The one that gets set when you set up a new storage group.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Mark Arnold [MVP]" wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:47:33 -0800, scottdotnot
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >We are sizing our servers for 4000 uses, with 1GB mailboxes, 30 storage
>> >groups with 1 mailbox store each and CCR.  How much space should I 
>> >allocate
>> >for the system files per storage group?  And what kind of transaction
>> >performance do these LUNS need?
>> >
>> >Thanks!!!
>>
>> Define "system files" volume?
>> And the transaction logs for that much traffic are going to need a
>> shed load of spindles to sit on. You're proposing putting upwards of
>> 5TB (inc DIRT) of databases on each server so you will have some
>> serious storage if your use of the plural "servers" wasn't a typo.
>>

Thanks for the reply, this has made for a fund day.

Sorry for being so vague.

When you create a Exchange storage group you have to specify two folder 
paths.  One for log files and one for “System Path”.  Not the binary files 
used to run exchange not the system files for the operating system.  I agree 
it is a bad term, but I don’t know what else to call it.  Try this, Right 
click on a storage group in the “General” tab you will see two fields that 
require a folder path.  One of them is for transaction log files.  The other 
one is for the System path location.  I assume that Exchange uses this for 
something “really” important, so I want to make sure I allocate a. enough 
space and b. enough performance so that my users will be happy little Outlook 
users.  

Maybe 2007 (and I mean Exchange 2007) does not even need this, I have seen 
reference of TMP folder (not to be confused with c:\TEMP, or your IE 
temporary internet files because I would post that question in a different 
newsgroup), but again I’m not sure how much of a resource you would need for 
that folder either…


Maybe I should just get a USB hub and stick some flash drives in my server 
just in case I need a Gig or 2…
Just kidding have a good weekend


"Al Mulnick" wrote:

> You're not making it easy...
> When I set up a new SG, I don't put it on the "System" luns.  System to me 
> is the, well, system a.k.a. Operating System.
> 
> In your case, you're mixing and matching terms to the point that you could 
> mean all kinds of things. For example, you may be referring to the binaries 
> of the application.  You may be referring to the stm placement locations. 
> You may be referring to the location for something else altogether, but 
> whatever you're referring to, you'll need to give an example so that your 
> terms and those of everyone else match.
> 
> Al
> 
> 
> 
> "scottdotnot"  wrote in message 
> news:6D42909B-8F28-4AB7-9B6E-E89168E1BFB8@microsoft.com...
> > thanks,
> >
> > yea I know, this is not a mom and pop shop running small buss. server.
> >
> > We have 2 EMC CX40 arrays with 168 disk in each one.  I understand how to
> > size edb and log LUNS I just can find anything on sizing the System luns.
> > The one that gets set when you set up a new storage group.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Mark Arnold [MVP]" wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:47:33 -0800, scottdotnot
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> >We are sizing our servers for 4000 uses, with 1GB mailboxes, 30 storage
> >> >groups with 1 mailbox store each and CCR.  How much space should I 
> >> >allocate
> >> >for the system files per storage group?  And what kind of transaction
> >> >performance do these LUNS need?
> >> >
> >> >Thanks!!!
> >>
> >> Define "system files" volume?
> >> And the transaction logs for that much traffic are going to need a
> >> shed load of spindles to sit on. You're proposing putting upwards of
> >> 5TB (inc DIRT) of databases on each server so you will have some
> >> serious storage if your use of the plural "servers" wasn't a typo.
> >> 
> 
> 
>

LOL.  I generally put the system files on the same LUNs I intend for my 
db's.   Since each installation of that size is going to be unique, you'll 
want to implement careful monitoring to ensure that you have the appropriate 
drive configuration mated to the application regardless of the starting 
point you use.

Also, if you haven't seen this yet, it's worth it to have a look:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/1c471676-2312-4ffe-adf2-15a9cfd529c4.aspx


"scottdotnot"  wrote in message 
news:40E3050C-3469-4E82-AEA2-124F33DA6F84@microsoft.com...
> Thanks for the reply, this has made for a fund day.
>
> Sorry for being so vague.
>
> When you create a Exchange storage group you have to specify two folder
> paths.  One for log files and one for "System Path".  Not the binary files
> used to run exchange not the system files for the operating system.  I 
> agree
> it is a bad term, but I don't know what else to call it.  Try this, Right
> click on a storage group in the "General" tab you will see two fields that
> require a folder path.  One of them is for transaction log files.  The 
> other
> one is for the System path location.  I assume that Exchange uses this for
> something "really" important, so I want to make sure I allocate a. enough
> space and b. enough performance so that my users will be happy little 
> Outlook
> users.
>
> Maybe 2007 (and I mean Exchange 2007) does not even need this, I have seen
> reference of TMP folder (not to be confused with c:\TEMP, or your IE
> temporary internet files because I would post that question in a different
> newsgroup), but again I'm not sure how much of a resource you would need 
> for
> that folder either.
>
>
> Maybe I should just get a USB hub and stick some flash drives in my server
> just in case I need a Gig or 2.
> Just kidding have a good weekend
>
>
> "Al Mulnick" wrote:
>
>> You're not making it easy...
>> When I set up a new SG, I don't put it on the "System" luns.  System to 
>> me
>> is the, well, system a.k.a. Operating System.
>>
>> In your case, you're mixing and matching terms to the point that you 
>> could
>> mean all kinds of things. For example, you may be referring to the 
>> binaries
>> of the application.  You may be referring to the stm placement locations.
>> You may be referring to the location for something else altogether, but
>> whatever you're referring to, you'll need to give an example so that your
>> terms and those of everyone else match.
>>
>> Al
>>
>>
>>
>> "scottdotnot"  wrote in message
>> news:6D42909B-8F28-4AB7-9B6E-E89168E1BFB8@microsoft.com...
>> > thanks,
>> >
>> > yea I know, this is not a mom and pop shop running small buss. server.
>> >
>> > We have 2 EMC CX40 arrays with 168 disk in each one.  I understand how 
>> > to
>> > size edb and log LUNS I just can find anything on sizing the System 
>> > luns.
>> > The one that gets set when you set up a new storage group.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Mark Arnold [MVP]" wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:47:33 -0800, scottdotnot
>> >>  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >We are sizing our servers for 4000 uses, with 1GB mailboxes, 30 
>> >> >storage
>> >> >groups with 1 mailbox store each and CCR.  How much space should I
>> >> >allocate
>> >> >for the system files per storage group?  And what kind of transaction
>> >> >performance do these LUNS need?
>> >> >
>> >> >Thanks!!!
>> >>
>> >> Define "system files" volume?
>> >> And the transaction logs for that much traffic are going to need a
>> >> shed load of spindles to sit on. You're proposing putting upwards of
>> >> 5TB (inc DIRT) of databases on each server so you will have some
>> >> serious storage if your use of the plural "servers" wasn't a typo.
>> >>
>>
>>
>>

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:09:48 -0500, "Al Mulnick"
 wrote:

>LOL.  I generally put the system files on the same LUNs I intend for my 
>db's.   Since each installation of that size is going to be unique, you'll 
>want to implement careful monitoring to ensure that you have the appropriate 
>drive configuration mated to the application regardless of the starting 
>point you use.
>
>Also, if you haven't seen this yet, it's worth it to have a look:
>http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/1c471676-2312-4ffe-adf2-15a9cfd529c4.aspx
>

Yup, that entry for System Path tells the server where to put the
checkpoint so I tend to keep that checkpoint away from where the
transaction logs are.

Hi Mark & Al,

What are your reasonings for not using the same locations for t-logs and the 
checkpoint?
I can't see any gain from separating them. MS even recommend that they be 
kept together.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/Analyzer/95fca90b-ae50-4bcf-b7b8-62cab0dcf411.mspx?mfr=true

/Simon
"Mark Arnold [MVP]"  wrote in message 
news:k91ht2tu9a5h70mbka2u8gef2lnmvcl1gr@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:09:48 -0500, "Al Mulnick"
>  wrote:
>
>>LOL.  I generally put the system files on the same LUNs I intend for my
>>db's.   Since each installation of that size is going to be unique, you'll
>>want to implement careful monitoring to ensure that you have the 
>>appropriate
>>drive configuration mated to the application regardless of the starting
>>point you use.
>>
>>Also, if you haven't seen this yet, it's worth it to have a look:
>>http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/1c471676-2312-4ffe-adf2-15a9cfd529c4.aspx
>>
>
> Yup, that entry for System Path tells the server where to put the
> checkpoint so I tend to keep that checkpoint away from where the
> transaction logs are.

Ok, then I take it you have seen the Exchange Team's sizing tool.

http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2007/01/15/432207.aspx

I get 23 storage groups of 1 database each with a db LUN (to include "system 
files") of 296GB and a log lun of 38.5GB.  The  total DB IOPS requirement is 
2308, and the total log IOPS requirement is 762.

Total database disk space is 6824GB, total log disk space is 848gb, and 
total restore lun disk space is 2335GB

Why do you need 336 spindles?  I don't think you cam buy 36G drives any 
more, so it's not space vs drive size.   60 to 150 spindles (depends on the 
drives from 15K SCSI to 7200 RPM SATA) gets you there on the performance 
side, so that's not it either.



"scottdotnot"  wrote in message 
news:6D42909B-8F28-4AB7-9B6E-E89168E1BFB8@microsoft.com...
> thanks,
>
> yea I know, this is not a mom and pop shop running small buss. server.
>
> We have 2 EMC CX40 arrays with 168 disk in each one.  I understand how to
> size edb and log LUNS I just can find anything on sizing the System luns.
> The one that gets set when you set up a new storage group.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Mark Arnold [MVP]" wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:47:33 -0800, scottdotnot
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >We are sizing our servers for 4000 uses, with 1GB mailboxes, 30 storage
>> >groups with 1 mailbox store each and CCR.  How much space should I 
>> >allocate
>> >for the system files per storage group?  And what kind of transaction
>> >performance do these LUNS need?
>> >
>> >Thanks!!!
>>
>> Define "system files" volume?
>> And the transaction logs for that much traffic are going to need a
>> shed load of spindles to sit on. You're proposing putting upwards of
>> 5TB (inc DIRT) of databases on each server so you will have some
>> serious storage if your use of the plural "servers" wasn't a typo.
>>

Raid 10, divide by 2.  CCR Divide by 2 again...

"John Fullbright [MVP]" wrote:

> Ok, then I take it you have seen the Exchange Team's sizing tool.
> 
> http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2007/01/15/432207.aspx
> 
> I get 23 storage groups of 1 database each with a db LUN (to include "system 
> files") of 296GB and a log lun of 38.5GB.  The  total DB IOPS requirement is 
> 2308, and the total log IOPS requirement is 762.
> 
> Total database disk space is 6824GB, total log disk space is 848gb, and 
> total restore lun disk space is 2335GB
> 
> Why do you need 336 spindles?  I don't think you cam buy 36G drives any 
> more, so it's not space vs drive size.   60 to 150 spindles (depends on the 
> drives from 15K SCSI to 7200 RPM SATA) gets you there on the performance 
> side, so that's not it either.
> 
> 
> 
> "scottdotnot"  wrote in message 
> news:6D42909B-8F28-4AB7-9B6E-E89168E1BFB8@microsoft.com...
> > thanks,
> >
> > yea I know, this is not a mom and pop shop running small buss. server.
> >
> > We have 2 EMC CX40 arrays with 168 disk in each one.  I understand how to
> > size edb and log LUNS I just can find anything on sizing the System luns.
> > The one that gets set when you set up a new storage group.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Mark Arnold [MVP]" wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:47:33 -0800, scottdotnot
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> >We are sizing our servers for 4000 uses, with 1GB mailboxes, 30 storage
> >> >groups with 1 mailbox store each and CCR.  How much space should I 
> >> >allocate
> >> >for the system files per storage group?  And what kind of transaction
> >> >performance do these LUNS need?
> >> >
> >> >Thanks!!!
> >>
> >> Define "system files" volume?
> >> And the transaction logs for that much traffic are going to need a
> >> shed load of spindles to sit on. You're proposing putting upwards of
> >> 5TB (inc DIRT) of databases on each server so you will have some
> >> serious storage if your use of the plural "servers" wasn't a typo.
> >> 
> 
> 
>

Thanks Simon!!! that is what I was looking for some documentation with a 
recommendation where to point that path.

"Simon Walsh" wrote:

> Hi Mark & Al,
> 
> What are your reasonings for not using the same locations for t-logs and the 
> checkpoint?
> I can't see any gain from separating them. MS even recommend that they be 
> kept together.
> 
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/Analyzer/95fca90b-ae50-4bcf-b7b8-62cab0dcf411.mspx?mfr=true
> 
> /Simon
> "Mark Arnold [MVP]"  wrote in message 
> news:k91ht2tu9a5h70mbka2u8gef2lnmvcl1gr@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:09:48 -0500, "Al Mulnick"
> >  wrote:
> >
> >>LOL.  I generally put the system files on the same LUNs I intend for my
> >>db's.   Since each installation of that size is going to be unique, you'll
> >>want to implement careful monitoring to ensure that you have the 
> >>appropriate
> >>drive configuration mated to the application regardless of the starting
> >>point you use.
> >>
> >>Also, if you haven't seen this yet, it's worth it to have a look:
> >>http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/1c471676-2312-4ffe-adf2-15a9cfd529c4.aspx
> >>
> >
> > Yup, that entry for System Path tells the server where to put the
> > checkpoint so I tend to keep that checkpoint away from where the
> > transaction logs are. 
> 
> 
>

With a total IOPS requirement of 3100 and amd RAID 10, that make 30ish 
spindles on each end (assumes 15K spindles @ 130 IOPS/spindle with a 20 ms 
response max response time) or a 60 spindle total requirement from a 
performance perspective.   If you go with 10K RPM spindles it's 80 or so.

How many clones are in the design and how much space/performance do they 
require?  The inefficiency of clones on the platform would explain the need 
for 336 spindles in the design.



"scottdotnot"  wrote in message 
news:1EA3D438-1021-4151-90F5-51E4F2D0BDA7@microsoft.com...
> Raid 10, divide by 2.  CCR Divide by 2 again...
>
> "John Fullbright [MVP]" wrote:
>
>> Ok, then I take it you have seen the Exchange Team's sizing tool.
>>
>> http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2007/01/15/432207.aspx
>>
>> I get 23 storage groups of 1 database each with a db LUN (to include 
>> "system
>> files") of 296GB and a log lun of 38.5GB.  The  total DB IOPS requirement 
>> is
>> 2308, and the total log IOPS requirement is 762.
>>
>> Total database disk space is 6824GB, total log disk space is 848gb, and
>> total restore lun disk space is 2335GB
>>
>> Why do you need 336 spindles?  I don't think you cam buy 36G drives any
>> more, so it's not space vs drive size.   60 to 150 spindles (depends on 
>> the
>> drives from 15K SCSI to 7200 RPM SATA) gets you there on the performance
>> side, so that's not it either.
>>
>>
>>
>> "scottdotnot"  wrote in message
>> news:6D42909B-8F28-4AB7-9B6E-E89168E1BFB8@microsoft.com...
>> > thanks,
>> >
>> > yea I know, this is not a mom and pop shop running small buss. server.
>> >
>> > We have 2 EMC CX40 arrays with 168 disk in each one.  I understand how 
>> > to
>> > size edb and log LUNS I just can find anything on sizing the System 
>> > luns.
>> > The one that gets set when you set up a new storage group.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Mark Arnold [MVP]" wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:47:33 -0800, scottdotnot
>> >>  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >We are sizing our servers for 4000 uses, with 1GB mailboxes, 30 
>> >> >storage
>> >> >groups with 1 mailbox store each and CCR.  How much space should I
>> >> >allocate
>> >> >for the system files per storage group?  And what kind of transaction
>> >> >performance do these LUNS need?
>> >> >
>> >> >Thanks!!!
>> >>
>> >> Define "system files" volume?
>> >> And the transaction logs for that much traffic are going to need a
>> >> shed load of spindles to sit on. You're proposing putting upwards of
>> >> 5TB (inc DIRT) of databases on each server so you will have some
>> >> serious storage if your use of the plural "servers" wasn't a typo.
>> >>
>>
>>
>>

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:22:59 +0100, "Simon Walsh"
 wrote:

>Hi Mark & Al,
>
>What are your reasonings for not using the same locations for t-logs and the 
>checkpoint?
>I can't see any gain from separating them. MS even recommend that they be 
>kept together.
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/Analyzer/95fca90b-ae50-4bcf-b7b8-62cab0dcf411.mspx?mfr=true
>
Oh that's easy to answer.
I'm stupid and got them the wrong damn way around.
Accept the apologies of an old man.